On Sep 27, Noel Welsh wrote:
> Now hold on one cotton-pickin' minute boy! We got
> match-let, match-let* and match-letrec. Durn me if
> they don't provide pattern matching to introduce new
> bindings. Sheesh, you kids think you know
> everything...
Yes it does -- and yes, between Swindle, my `match' form, and that
fact that all this is basically used free time, I managed to
completely forgot about it. But what bothers me in that approach
which is pretty standard is the fact that patterns are really
`special' in the sense that they don't look like what made them.
Either a pattern like `(foo x y)' matches a list of three arguments,
or you hack an addition that will match something else -- and I want
the set of patterns to be expendable -- I want to match structures,
objects and random things that I feel like matching.
Anyway, I'll check things out now -- maybe the best approach would be
to start from match.ss...
> Grandpa-Noel, who programmed with S and K patch-boards
> when he was a boy
If those are what I think they are, then I did that too!
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!